Obligatory Uniformz Post Comment Count

Brian December 18th, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Hey. Life rolls on. Thank you to those who have expressed condolences.

One of the running jokes on the podcast this year has been theorizing that the athletic department has someone specifically dedicated to trolling me. Evidence: "In The Big House" did not return until after the nonconference season had convinced me it was gone, and Michigan waited until the last possible moment to change Jordan Kovacs away from #32. Taken with the deployment of Denard and Devin against Ohio State, this is strong evidence indeed.

If they are deep enough inside that they knew what I was writing up this morning and chose that hour to release the latest in the ever-growing line of uniformz, I am terrified because the sleeper agent is probably me.

Anyway. We knew this was coming because Michigan's promise after they announced the Alabama uniformz was that they would not screw with the jerseys during the regular season. They are here. If you have not been on the internet, here they are:

A-aWn2tCIAA2Ewh[1]

A-aWxF5CcAEipEQ[1]

They finally screwed with the helmet. Also Ramzy pointed out that there seem to be four different shades of yellow on this thing.

Yes, yes, the kids love it, which is why Alabama and USC are struggling to recruit these days. It is possible the kids are not quite so stupid as that meme thinks they are and make decisions based on things other than wearing goofy alternates a couple of times a year. Your assertion as to what the kids love does not seem to have much bearing on where they go to school. Alabama did not need fancy duds to annihilate Michigan earlier this year.

MICHIGAN ALABAMA

What gets me is that many iconic uniforms are not being futzed with, including the aforementioned teams plus Texas, Florida State, Penn State, and Oklahoma*, but the people running those athletic departments must be wrong and the man who brought us pasta inside a bread bowl must be right. I do not agree that this is necessarily the case, Kids Love It Arguer Guy.

I mean, the brand-manic NFL has strict restrictions on third jerseys, with many of the teams deploying them once or twice… ever. NFL teams are prohibited from wearing alternates in the Super Bowl, and only the Chargers have ever deployed them in a playoff game, probably because the Chargers' alternates are themselves a great tradition revived from the 1960s.

It's no real loss if Michigan looks dumb playing in Tampa, but I'll be sad if Michigan plays a Rose Bowl in anything other than classic Schembechler blue. And if you wouldn't want to wear it at the Rose Bowl, why would you want to wear it anywhere?

I promise to write another version of this post in August when alternate uniforms for the ND game are announced, because it is tradition, and tradition is important. #thisguygetsit

*[All of those teams have largely if not entirely opted out. Oklahoma wore some all-whites that were roundly panned in 2009 and scrapped the concept, and Texas altered their helmets to honor Darrel K Royal this year but that's a whole different thing everyone should be okay with. IIRC Alabama did have some sort of subtle houndstooth thing in one game. In each case any uniform alterations were one-offs or close to it, not Michigan's parade.]

Comments

akim

December 18th, 2012 at 4:48 PM ^

I haven't liked any of our uniform changes, but I do like a lot of oregon's uniforms.  I feel like adidas is just doing something wrong.

EricTheActor

December 18th, 2012 at 4:50 PM ^

I've been on Pimp Hand's cock since he became the AD. Love the job he's done so far. This is the first malfeasance on his part that I detect. 

Enough with the uniformz, DB.

Autocracy Now

December 18th, 2012 at 4:53 PM ^

They're just uniforms. I get tradition, warm fuzzies from how Bo's troops suited up and all that,  but I think people are overstating how much the unis matter. The winged helmet is iconic, and I am pretty sure that will never go away. Can you say that you really even pay any attention to the uniforms beyond the first 5 minutes of the games?

Let's get over it, because Dave Brandon and the gang really aren't listening. They pay staff and consulting firms enormous sums of money to tweak our brand in the name of improved marketing. Implicit in all that strategizing is that we have to change something in to get better (dolla dolla bills).  At least that is the philosophy of the athletic department these days. 

Autocracy Now

December 18th, 2012 at 5:10 PM ^

I am just saying the opinion of the MGoBlog demographic does not significantly impact these decisions. We will continue to buy our tickets; continue to watch, cheer and criticize the leadership in the department; and continue to pay money for jerseys (the classic style). Our opinion is ___ to Dave Brandon. Our protests only echo in MGoBlogland. 

I realize my post has a Putin avatar next to it. The irony is not lost on me. 

Anonymosity

December 18th, 2012 at 5:37 PM ^

The winged helmet is iconic, and I am pretty sure that will never go away.

I wouldn't count on that. All other uniform-related evidence indicates that we WILL see an "alternate" helmet at some point before DB retires, beyond just adding numbers or messing with the finish. My money is on one of these final two Notre Dame games or Michigan's next Rose Bowl appearance.

WolvinLA2

December 18th, 2012 at 4:55 PM ^

The worst part is that at some point MDen will send an email to my wife telling her that all M fans need this jersey, and, believing the email, she'll buy it for me.  I'll put it right next to the Sugar Bowl jersey I don't wear for the same reason. 

jlbockUM

December 18th, 2012 at 5:28 PM ^

Obviously this is another uniform disaster.  However, money walks for Dave Brandon and the Athletic Department.  My suggestion is to message the following email address:

[email protected]

That is the University of Michigan Donations email.  Let them know that you were thinking of donating but these new uniforms have caused you to become violently ill and now you've got to but a new laptop/phone/tablet.  That will show em!  Okay probably not...

BlueInWisconsin

December 18th, 2012 at 5:35 PM ^

When you have one of the most iconic uniforms in all of sports why would you ever in a million years want to dress up like some mid-major team that added varsity football in the 1980's? This does nothing but dilute the Michigan brand.

msom4202

December 18th, 2012 at 5:35 PM ^

No no that we have new jerseys, but the pure ignorance of this post. First off, the jerseys themselves were designed with the help of the seniors. Your not the ones playing in the jerseys, THEY ARE. They approved the design. All you have to do is read the article and it will tell you. Second, there is nothing wrong with these jerseys at all and in my opinion, anything is better than our primary dull, and boring jerseys. Almost every other team on the rise is trying new twist to their uniforms. And actually Florida State has made a lot of changes to their jerseys and accessories. Any team with decent jerseys is signed to Nike. Just look when they played Virginia Tech last month. We have the oldest jerseys in college along with Notre Dame and Penn State and it's time for a change. To hell with your beloved "tradition" with the jerseys that trash is overrated. Oregon has the tradition of LOOKING AWESOME every game and obviously recruits like it enough to de-commit from Michigan every year. Even Leon McQuay released a statement a few months ago telling how he loves their jersey combinations and obviously it's bringing in recruits, why would everyone say it is if it wasn't? That just doesn't make sense. You guys may be in denial about it but whether you guys like it or not, PLAYERS LIKE LOOKING GOOD!!! Honestly these jerseys, the cowboys classics, and the all white legacy jerseys are the best jerseys we've ever had. It has nothing to do with kids, that joke has no validity. Only these damn discussion boards pick out the dumbest sh*t to complain about. Maybe if we go back to Nike this will all be solved. I'm sure they'll find a more creative way to design a primary jersey than old ass Adidas jerseys. We look so out of date, bulky, and unathletic. I hate to say it but Ohios new pro combat jerseys are nice, but If we have it your guys way, well only have two jerseys in our closet for every game. We need to move with the times.

WolvinLA2

December 18th, 2012 at 6:33 PM ^

You're obviously young (you haven't yet learned how to use paragraphs), but you're also pretty wrong.  If Oregon's uniformz really brought in so many recruits, why are they currently #46 in the country according to Rivals, despite having plenty of recent success, and being one of the top teams in the country all year?  Their top recruit, by the way, lives right down the street. 

Whether people want to admit it or not, these recruits like tradition.  It's why the top recruiting schools are the programs who have always been good.  It's why ND recruited so well even when they sucked.  Who are the top programs in terms of recruiting over the last decade?  Easily Alabama and USC, and they have traditional uniforms that never get fucked with. 

We used to be like that, but now we're falling into that same hole. 

PS - the fact that you said, "anything is better than our primary dull, and boring jerseys." drives me nuts.

Don

December 19th, 2012 at 2:32 AM ^

You're entirely misinterpreting Brian's point, which is that Alabama understands that it doesn't need to appeal to the juvenile marketing-based need to promote a new jersey three times a year in order to attract top-level recruits, which is the justification so many proffer for our clownification of what was once a sublimely simple and powerful uniform that we had.

As for their success in recruiting being entirely due to oversigning, you're kidding yourself. If you oversign a mediocre class, you've just got a lot of mediocre players. Alabama is able to sign a strong class because they've got the most successful coach in the last three decades, and one of the most historic names in the college football.

The Barwis Effect

December 19th, 2012 at 6:57 AM ^

Second, where in my post did I say Alabama's success was entirely due to over signing? Yes, Saban's a great coach -- that goes without saying -- but the only one kidding them self is you if you don't believe that they (along with USC, which you conveniently left out of your response) have some built in recruiting advantages.

Don

December 19th, 2012 at 8:59 AM ^

You said Alabama's recruiting success had "almost everything to do with the fact they're not playing on a level field with the rest of us." If you're not referring to oversigning, what are you referring to? Only a dope would deny that SEC teams like Alabama attain an advantage via oversigning, but would oversigning enable Iowa State or Syracuse to suddenly surpass Michigan or Ohio State in the strength of their recruiting classes?

As far as USC goes, they also obtain advantages via oversigning and whatever other barely-legal and totally unethical practices they engage in, but that's not the sole source of their recruiting prowess. That's mainly due to their location (in Southern CA) and their football tradition. Colorado could oversign for a decade and still not come close to what USC is able to do in recruiting. Plenty of teams cheat every year—Colorado certainly was a dumpster fire of ethics under Neuheisel and Barnett, and they still went down the crapper.

B-Nut-GoBlue

December 18th, 2012 at 7:31 PM ^

I understand opinions are meant to not be right and not be wrong.  This, block you just wrote, happens to accomplish the former, not be right, yet be wrong.  Terribly wrong.  Srsly, what things/people/concepts do you value?  It's assured by your post that the things and concepts you value are not a match to the majority of this board make-up.

Tater

December 18th, 2012 at 5:38 PM ^

It's sad that AD's who pound the bully pulpit about "tradition" are often the first to trample on it when they think they can make an extra buck.

The FannMan

December 18th, 2012 at 5:45 PM ^

I hate these things.  I hate the Outback corporate patch.  I hate the "Let's sell moar jerszies to our fanz and make moar money" motivation.  I hate the fact that our uniforms are great and do not need to be played with, but the AD thinks of nothing else. I hate that they are butt ugly.

But, I have to admit that I am getting tired of fighting it.  I am basicaly in the same place as with Big Ten expansion.  I have accepted that something I loved for my whole life is now gone - screwed with for the sake of money and short term thinking.  So if we can have a 14 or 16 or 20 team Big Ten where Wisconsin is a distant rumor and faded memory, then  whatever man.  Why should these guys be any different when it comes to uniforms? 

If they are going to do this, I do wish that they would hire someone with taste to design it.  I mean, how much time went into this - 20, 30 minutes?

 

Bando Calrissian

December 18th, 2012 at 5:55 PM ^

Dave Brandon wants you to break down and quit fighting.  He wants you to embrace, as he so aptly puts it, "change for the sake of change."  

Dave Brandon needs change because he thrives on the incessant need to market something new.  He can't sit still without finding another avenue to exploit.  These jerseys are just another thing he can market, and as long as he needs to make more money, there will be more jerseys and more "WOW moments" he can package and take to the bank.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the need to make money for Athletics.  But at some point you have to ask at what point does making more money cross the rubicon of taste?  At what point does Michigan stop being Michigan, and start looking more and more like every Tom, Dick, and Harry State University with mix 'n match uniform parts and a stadium that feels like a rock concert that happens to have a football game?  

We're getting closer and closer, and I for one detest it.  And I don't even have a lawn for you to get off of.

MGlobules

December 18th, 2012 at 5:52 PM ^

challenged, too. Shortbus challenged. You cannot lose with dignity in those uniformz, and I'm not sure you can win with dignity in them, either. 

If Dave Brandon was the ultimate arbiter. . . 

WolverineRage

December 18th, 2012 at 6:00 PM ^

I posted on FB after watching the Utah State/Toledo matchup where they both had matte helmets that I'd be curious to see the M helmet in matte.

I like this helmet. I think a full matte would be cool too.

That being said, I don't like the uni. It's too busy and weird.

Fighting the patch is a losing battle. That's what the bowls do these days. I'm guessing (hoping) its an Outback Bowl requirement and not a choice by DB.

Elmer

December 18th, 2012 at 6:01 PM ^

The back of the jersey looks worse than the front.  Can't stand the patches and the blue across the shoulders. 

The one thing I do really like is that numbers are bolder, instead of the skinny, odd looking font for the numbers on the Sugar Bowl jersey.  Even our normal away jersey needs slightly larger numbers like this one has.  As for the numbers being yellow with blue trim, I'm not sure.  Would have to see them live...which I guess I will.

YoOoBoMoLloRoHo

December 18th, 2012 at 6:22 PM ^

jersey and blasphemy for giving up home field unis.

I'm looking forward to a bowl game in the near future when we just wear traditional stuff and pound the traditional stuffing out of the opposition. Manball in manwear.